It should raised immediately. The SS trust fund is a ponzi scheme, starving it of money will make it more difficult to continue the scheme in the future. The lib's don't mind this problem as they appear to believe money grows on trees. They will try to fix the shortfall in funds by taking away the benefits the top wage earners have been promised. This just another tool they will use in their class warfare jihad.Or have we now put ourselves in a situation where the political incentives will lead to an annual Christmas posturing as each side accuses the other of wanting "to raise taxes on the middle class", leading to this "temporary" tax cut taking on a permanent nature?
If so, the cavernous hole that is our entitlement disaster just got a good bit deeper.
It should raised immediately. The SS trust fund is a ponzi scheme, starving it of money will make it more difficult to continue the scheme in the future. The lib's don't mind this problem as they appear to believe money grows on trees. They will try to fix the shortfall in funds by taking away the benefits the top wage earners have been promised. This just another tool they will use in their class warfare jihad.
You mean for income of $100K or less right, because the middle class is not bound by $100K. So for income more than $100K, the rate would be higher, correct?If everyone agrees SS has a funding problem, touching that particular tax is not a good idea.
If you really want to help the middle class, lower the tax brackets to 10% for everyone making 100,000 or less. Thats helping the middle class. Imo
When liberals are willing to rollback the size of the federal government to pre-Bush levels then we can talk about rolling back tax rates to pre-Bush levels.I think it can be raised back and should be eventually...all the terminology Ive heard attached to it is temporary...I also think bush tax cuts should end...we need revenue whether the teaparty will admit that or not..and cuts...not one or the other
Or have we now put ourselves in a situation where the political incentives will lead to an annual Christmas posturing as each side accuses the other of wanting "to raise taxes on the middle class", leading to this "temporary" tax cut taking on a permanent nature?
If so, the cavernous hole that is our entitlement disaster just got a good bit deeper.
if the rate became permanent as you suggest for employers as well as the employees, then I could see it having a stimulative effect,
but I doubt that you are going to get higher income / wealth taxes to cover the hole in Social Security. The Much-Demanded Repeal Of The Bush Tax Cut For The Rich, for example, wouldn't have even made up the difference this year; much less once the Baby Boomers are in full retirement.
Meh, it doesn't really matter whether you take the tax out before or after it shows up on their pay stub. It all comes from the same place, the employer/employee payroll distinction is just for accounting purposes. If it's more politically palatable to give employees a tax cut instead of employers, that's fine with me. The important thing is that payroll taxes were cut.
Well personally I think that effective taxes should be a lot HIGHER than that, but the pre-Bush tax cut levels seem to be the most revenue politicians will even consider so that's what we're left with.
Anyway, if the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000 it will bring in an extra $70 billion per year according to the CBO and the Treasury Department
The payroll tax cut costs roughly $110 billion a year.
So it isn't THAT far off,
especially if the gap is bridged with measures that have bipartisan support such as charging a fee to mortgage lenders a fee to run their loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Such policy changes would have the effect of stimulating the economy, reducing wealth disparity, and reducing the likelihood and severity of future real estate bubbles.
And in any case, while I wouldn't mind making the payroll tax cut permanent, it's far more important that we at least extend it for a couple more years until the economy recovers. Whether or not it's made permanent after the economy recovers is less important.
Isn't this a good step in reforming SS? Won't it be easier to start removing people from the SS roles if their direct contribution to it is removed and it is funded from general funds?
If SS becomes just another welfare program that is only given to those in need that solves much of the problems with SS.
IMO, a myth spread by Limbaugh and his conservatives.Or have we now put ourselves in a situation where the political incentives will lead to an annual Christmas posturing as each side accuses the other of wanting "to raise taxes on the middle class", leading to this "temporary" tax cut taking on a permanent nature?
If so, the cavernous hole that is our entitlement disaster just got a good bit deeper.
what makes you think that higher tax rates will bring in more revenue?
as you increase the incentive for high-performing individuals to maximize their tax avoidance rather than their productivity, that is what they will do. all you'll see from dramatically hiking rates is A) capital freezing up or fleeing and B) reduced growth from our previously attainable rate, as production is turned to tax avoidance.
statically scored, which is bogus, but yes.
no. it costs us $110 Bn this year. As employment increases (which, hopefully, it will eventually start doing), the losses increase.
500 Bn over a 10 year period? that's almost half of the Supercommittees assigned task right there!
I fail to see why reducing wealth disparity should be a goal,
but you are speaking policy, and what I am asking here is politics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?